Space Shuttles

  • 16 Replies
  • 15675 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Space Shuttles
« on: October 08, 2012, 10:02:37 PM »
'The Dr. Beter Audio Letters Volume 2: 1979-1982'
By Dr. Peter Beter
http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Beter-Audio-Letters-1979-1982/dp/1441472002/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1349756227&sr=1-6&keywords=peter+beter

Credit goes to Sandokhan (Levee) for first locating the material in this book.  I do not agree with everything in Beter's reports, but they do contain the most thorough and strongest debunking of the Space Shuttle missions which I have yet seen.

This book is also online. 
http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/docs/all/dbaltpcs.html

It is composed of 80 letters of three chapters each.  I have combed it for those who want to skip straight to the chapters about the Space Shuttles:

Audio Letter #48, Part 1      The Final Chapter in The Great Skylab Cover-Up
Audio Letter #62, Part 1      The Secret Military Mission of the Space Shuttle Columbia
Audio Letter #64, Introduction   
Audio Letter #64, Part 1      The Advance Preparations for the Space Shuttle Mission
Audio Letter #64, Part 2      The Aborted Flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia
Audio Letter #64, Part 3      The NASA Cover-up of the Columbia Disaster
Audio Letter #65, Part 2      The aftermath of the Shuttle Columbia disaster
Audio Letter #68, Part 2      Deliberate delays in the Space Shuttle launch
Audio Letter #69, Summary   
Audio Letter #70, Part 2      The American Space Shuttle Failure Number Two
Audio Letter #73, Part 3      The first military success of the Space Shuttle
Audio Letter #76, Part 3      The final Space Shuttle mission for war


Dr. Peter Beter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Beter
http://www.peterdavidbeter.com/ 

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #1 on: November 06, 2012, 06:13:14 PM »
Dr. Beter's Audio Lecture #64 appears to best examine the heart of the issue, and I reproduce it here.  I might mention that Dr. Beter was a CIA connected financier who was also a staunch supporter of segregationist George Wallace for president, but it is easy enough to distinguish his political opinions from his analysis of what actually happens on space shuttle flights.   

As to Beter's assertions about scientific reality, I am as yet unaware of any corroborating information as to the existence of Russian cosmopheres, but I confess that neither have I checked into it.  Although I reject Beter's perspective about alleged events on the moon in the late 1970's, it should be born in mind that Dr. Beter believed the Apollo moon missions were real - a fact which only adds to his credibility because it proves he was not motivated by a desire to discredit the entire space program.


AUDIO LECTURE #64 INTRODUCTION

 Hello, my friends, this is Dr. Beter. Today is April 27, 1981, and this is my AUDIO LETTER No. 64.

"T minus 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...We've gone for main engine start. We have main engine start." (Engine noise takes over for some two seconds) "...liftoff of America's first Space Shuttle, and the Shuttle has cleared the tower." (Then again the roaring
noise on the AUDIO LETTER tape.)

And that's how it all began, my friends, just two weeks ago--Sunday, April 12, 1981. After years of delay, America's first attempt to launch a space shuttle into orbit had finally begun.

In days gone by, the voice of "Mission Control" has always been a familiar hallmark of American manned flights into space.
In the early days, beginning with "PROJECT MERCURY", the voice was that of Col. John (Shorty) Powers. Later, during the "APOLLO" program there were other voices; but regardless of who it was, that familiar voice of "Mission Control" would always
stay with us throughout each space flight--that is, until this time. This time the voice of Mission Control, up until the moment of launch, was that of NASA spokesman Hugh Harris. The last words Harris spoke as the voice of Mission Control were the words you just heard: "The Shuttle has cleared the tower."

Television cameras followed the Shuttle as it climbed higher and higher on a column of steam and smoke. For another 30 seconds or so, we were allowed to hear the slowly fading roar of the Shuttle's rocket engines. Then the sounds from Mission
Control abruptly changed. Exactly 45 seconds after lift-off, "live" audio from Mission Control was terminated. In its place NASA began feeding the radio and television networks an elaborate tape recording, which had been prepared far ahead of time by
NASA. The change-over from "live" audio to the NASA tape recording sounded like this: (First, loud roaring for 10 seconds, abruptly fading, then into a steadily increasing-in-loudness humming-roaring for some 10 seconds.) "4-34...?" "Roger."
(More of the roaring sound.)

Just 45 seconds after lift-off, the falsified NASA coverage of the flight of the "Columbia" began. We were still able to see the Columbia by way of long-distance television cameras for another minute and a half, but the sounds we were hearing were no longer "live." They were the sounds of the special NASA tape recording. For the first minute or so of the tape recording, we heard nothing but the sound effects simulating conversation between the Shuttle and NASA-Houston. Then, for the first time, we heard the anonymous new voice of Mission Control. It was no longer the familiar live voice of Hugh Harris, but the recorded voice of someone else. For added realism, the new voice was interrupted in turn by the recorded voice of the alleged capsule communicator Daniel Brandenstein. It sounded like this: (first a high-pitched screech followed by) "One minute 45 seconds, coming up on go-go-go." "Columbia, you're negative seats." "That call-up says that, Columbia, the altitude is too high for ejection seat use."

By that point the shuttle Columbia was more than 20 miles high, and climbing fast. Everything was going according to plan so far, so the things we were hearing on the tape recording corresponded to what we were seeing. We could still see the Shuttle on our TV sets, but it had dwindled to nothing more than three bright spots dancing in the distant sky.

The last thing that you and I were able to see and verify for ourselves about the Shuttle was the separation of those two giant
solid-rocket boosters. A little over two minutes after liftoff, we were able to watch the boosters, two burning bright spots, break off to each side. That left only the single tiny flame of the Shuttle itself, gradually fading into invisibility. Several seconds later the NASA tape recording caught up with what we had already seen, and said the boosters had separated. Moments later
the tiny bright dot of the Shuttle faded from our screens. It was too far away for the television cameras to follow any longer. We had had our last look at the real space shuttle Columbia!

In AUDIO LETTER No. 62 two months ago, I gave an advance alert about the secret military mission of the space shuttle Columbia. At that time I made public what the mission was really all about. I was also able to reveal what to expect in the falsified NASA coverage of the mission.

The falsified coverage was designed to accomplish two purposes. First, to completely hide the military nature of the mission; and second, to make sure the mission looked like a total success, no matter what might happen in secret. As I detailed in AUDIO LETTER No. 62, the Bolsheviks here in the federal government are depending heavily on the Space Shuttle Program to get ready for a nuclear war against Russia.

The falsified NASA coverage of the mission of the space shuttle Columbia was carried out exactly according to plan. I
revealed this plan two months ago. There were the standard brief cockpit scenes made by techniques which I will describe later.
Just to make it look good, it was spiced up by telling us that a few non-critical tiles had fallen off. Otherwise we were told over and over how perfectly the Columbia was performing.

Four days ago on April 23, a news conference about the flight was held in Houston, Texas, by the alleged two astronauts, John
Young and Robert Crippen. The entity called John Young summed up the flight in words that were more meaningful than most people suspected. Referring to the falsified flight which we followed on television, he called it, quote: "...even better than normal."

And so it was, my friends. The Bolsheviks who now control NASA bent over backwards to paint the image of an abnormally perfect
shuttle flight. Meanwhile the actual Shuttle mission, which was carried out in secret, did not go according to plan. After the Shuttle disappeared from our television screens, the flight continued for barely four more minutes before disaster struck.
The Columbia never even reached earth orbit!

My friends, I believe you have both the right and the need to know what happened to the space shuttle Columbia two weeks ago. I believe you deserve to know, in detail, how and why the truth was hidden from you. The stakes involve nothing less than the very survival of our land and our way of life.

 My three special topics for this AUDIO LETTER are:

Topic #1--THE ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION
Topic #2--THE ABORTED FLIGHT OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE "COLUMBIA"
Topic #3--THE NASA COVERUP OF THE "COLUMBIA" DISASTER.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #2 on: November 06, 2012, 06:14:38 PM »
Topic #1--THE ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION

There is an old saying that "Seeing is believing." For that reason, television has become the No. 1 tool of deception in America today. Through television we are made to see things we do not understand so that we will believe things that are not true. If television were used honestly and constructively, television could be a great force for good. Instead, it's used continually to hoax, deceive, and mislead us. Video-taping makes events which took place weeks or months ago look as if they were taking place "live" right before our eyes. Computer editing enables scenes to be spliced together to create completely artificial images that look real. Special effects of all kinds enable these television hoaxes to be very convincing indeed.

Two years ago I described one major television hoax in detail in AUDIO LETTER No. 44. That hoax involved no less than the NBC television news program "Meet the Press." Now we have been treated to another great television hoax, and this one was the granddaddy of them all. In terms of sheer deception, this was the "Meet the Press" hoax, "Guyana", and SKYLAB all rolled into
one. This was the hoax coverage of the first flight of the space shuttle Columbia.

To begin with, we were led to believe that until two weeks ago no space shuttle had ever left the earth's atmosphere and gone into space. We were also led to believe that the very first space flight by a shuttle had to be an orbital flight, instead of
something less extreme. To make matters still worse, NASA swore up and down that this very first flight, pushing the Shuttle to its limits, just had to have men aboard. At one point even John Young himself was quoted to this effect very widely in the
controlled major media. For example, two months ago on February 15, the New York Times carried a big article about the Shuttle.
Quoting from the article: "Mr. Young said, to have conducted an unmanned orbital flight of the Shuttle first would have added perhaps $500,000,000 to project costs, and meant another year's delay." Statements like that were cooked up purely to explain
away the many things that did not add up about the announced plans for the Columbia's flight. Many people believe these explanations, but they were just a litany of lies.

For example, time after time during the television coverage of the alleged flight this month, John Young's earlier statement was
totally contradicted. Authoritative spokesmen pointed out over and over that the astronauts control the Shuttle by telling computers aboard the Shuttle what they want. The computers then do all the actual activation and control of the Shuttle--and, in
an emergency, the Shuttle can fly itself into orbit, re-enter, and even land itself without help from the pilots. So much for all those lies NASA told us about an unmanned first flight being impossible.

The real reason astronauts were aboard the first orbital flight was the one I revealed in AUDIO LETTER No. 62. It was a military mission, and the astronauts had to be aboard to carry it out. NASA told us that the flight this month was only a test
flight with the cargo bay practically empty. But the cargo bay of the Columbia was not empty. It carried a laser-armed Spy Satellite equipped with special shields to protect it against Russian space weapons. "But wait a minute", you say. "They
showed us live pictures from space and you could see that the bay was empty." No, my friends, not "live" pictures but video tapes. The pictures with the doors closed were taken inside a training mock-up of the shuttle that is carried inside a specially
modified Boeing 747. The pictures with the doors open were taken on the ground inside a darkened hangar. Then these scenes were combined by video tape editing techniques with video tapes of the earth taken from orbit years ago. The final product was what you saw on television. It was not what it appeared to be, but "seeing is believing."

My friends, the next time you see a replay of those scenes with the Shuttle doors open, supposedly in space, there is a telltale clue to look for. Look at the shadows visible inside the open cargo bay. Shadows in space tend to be sharp and harsh
because there is no air to soften and diffuse them. The shadows we saw in the video tapes on television were softer because they were not made in space. Also, look at the angle of the shadows. The earth is shown floating straight overhead, and it is all in daylight. Look at the slant of the shadows inside the open cargo bay, then ask yourself: "Where is the light coming from to make shadows like that?"

The impossible shadows which we saw in the Shuttle bay video tapes are just one small example of the many discrepancies in the NASA hoax. More to the point, NASA has pretended that the Columbia flight this month was the very first shuttle flight into
space. We are supposed to believe that the only previous shuttle operations were a few gliding tests launched from mid air by
another modified 747. Nothing could be more ridiculous or more untrue.

There is one very obvious question about the Space Shuttle Program which NASA has always managed to side step. Somehow no
one ever quite dares to ask it. The question is: Why wasn't the space shuttle "Enterprise" the first to be sent into orbit?
After all, the Enterprise made its public debut nearly four years ago in the summer of 1977.

To all outward appearances, the Enterprise looks almost identical to its sister ship, the Columbia. The differences between the two are so subtle that you would never notice them unless you knew exactly what to look for. The engines of the
Enterprise look just like the engines of the Columbia. The Enterprise is also covered with the same system of thermal tiles as the Columbia, so again, the question is: Why wasn't the Enterprise sent into orbit long ago? Why did NASA wait three
years and more to launch the Columbia instead? The answer, my friends, is that the Enterprise was designed to be a training
ship for shuttle astronauts. It is not meant for orbital flight. Instead, it is specially equipped to make shorter, suborbital
flights into space. In effect, it can do everything short of going into earth orbit. It can climb to orbital altitudes as high as 125 miles before dropping back to earth. This enables astronauts to practice working in weightlessness for up to five and one-half minutes at a time. It also allows astronauts to practice landing the shuttle, slowing down from speeds of around 5,000 miles per hour.

The Enterprise is exactly like its sister ships in the crew compartment and cockpit. What makes the Enterprise radically different is the cargo bay area. The Enterprise cannot carry cargo because the bay area is taken up by rocket fuel tanks. The tanks of the Enterprise can hold well over 100,000 pounds of rocket fuel when fully loaded. To make a suborbital hop into space, the Enterprise is perched on top of a modified Boeing 747 known as the "Launch Aircraft." Inside the 747 there are technicians with instruments and support equipment for the shuttle. The shuttle Enterprise is loaded with rocket fuel, and then the 747 takes off. At an altitude of around 40,000 feet, the shuttle is launched. The launch techniques are derived from the old days of the X-15 Research Airplane and others before it. The Enterprise is released from its mounts, rises up, and then falls back behind the 747. As soon as it is clear of the 747, the Enterprise starts its rocket engines and zooms upward at a steep angle. After a minute or so the rockets shut off, and the Enterprise is left to coast upward to its peak altitude and then drop back toward earth. From the moment the engines shut off until the shuttle begins re-entering the atmosphere five or six minutes later, the astronauts inside are weightless.

Astronauts Young and Crippen made more than half a dozen training flights like this aboard the Enterprise before they lifted off aboard the Columbia at Cape Canaveral. That is why they were so ready to go all the way into orbit. They had already done everything else that was necessary to work their way up to it. Of course, other training was necessary to work their way up to those suborbital flights aboard the Enterprise. For one thing, they spent many hours in the detailed replica of the shuttle which is housed inside a modified Boeing 747. The "Flying Mock-Up", as it is called, is a simulator designed to acquaint astronauts with shuttle operation as realistically as possible. One of its advantages is that it can even provide periods of weightlessness of up to about 45 seconds. The 747 pilot does this by flying a precise arc through the air called a "parabolic trajectory." It's an old technique developed a quarter century ago to help astronauts get accustomed to weightlessness.

All of these things and more were originally conceived and developed for purely technical reasons, but they are being kept secret from you because the Bolsheviks who now control NASA have turned them into tools of deception against you and me. Lately, publicity about the Space Shuttle Program has been focused on three geographic locations. One is the launch site for orbital missions, Cape Canaveral, Florida. Another is Edwards Air Force Base, California. The third is that old stand-by, the NASA Manned Space Flight Center in Houston, Texas.

As always, we are being distracted from paying serious attention to the one area that is most important of all. It is the missing link, the true nerve center of the entire Space Shuttle Program. My friends, I'm talking about the White Sands Missile Range in southern New Mexico.

Most people today rarely give a second thought to White Sands. Few people remember that White Sands is where America's Space Program got its start after World War II. Captured German V-2 rockets were taken to White Sands to be studied and test fired. After the V-2s, there were American rockets, the Navy's Viking series, and others. They were launched, rocketed upward into the fringes of space, and came back to earth--all within the boundaries of the vast White Sands Missile Range. One time a
missile got out of control, veered south, and almost destroyed a small Mexican town when it crashed to earth; but that incident
was a dramatic exception to the normal situation. Most of the time, no one outside White Sands even knew when rockets were
launched. Recently the public has been made aware of the vast wide-open spaces that constitute Edwards Air Force Base in California. For comparison, White Sands is so huge that it would hold nearly 100 Edwards Air Force Bases!

White Sands, my friends, is the training base for space shuttle pilots; and since late 1977 it has also become much more. It is the geographic key to the secret military missions which are now the central focus of the Space Shuttle Program. The Shuttle Program today is being managed in a way that is far different from the original plans. In August 1977 we were shown early gliding tests of the training shuttle Enterprise. The plan of NASA was to drum up public support for the Shuttle Program, just as they had done a decade earlier in the Moon Program.

In AUDIO LETTER No. 26 I detailed how the Apollo Program, the biggest military program in American history, was disguised as a peaceful scientific venture. In the same way, the original plan was to bathe the military Shuttle Program in the glare of deceptive publicity. In the process we would have learned about the suborbital space capability of the Enterprise. Even the crucial White Sands would have received more publicity.

What changed it all was the secret "Battle of the Harvest Moon" in space September 27, 1977. This secret space battle,
which I made public that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 26, took place barely one month after the first gliding tests of the space shuttle Enterprise. Russia's military take-over of space was under way!

Only the next month, October 1977, a newly operational Russian Cosmos Interceptor shot down SKYLAB. SKYLAB, along with its crew of five American astronauts secretly aboard, died in a giant fireball over the United States. I reported on SKYLAB's fate that month in AUDIO LETTER No. 27, and also revealed that NASA was initiating a prolonged cover-up of what had happened. NASA wanted everyone to forget about that mysterious headline-making fireball, so they pretended that SKYLAB was still in orbit but sinking unexpectedly. NASA used stories about the space shuttle as part of their SKYLAB cover-up. They pretended that perhaps the shuttle would come along in time to save SKYLAB. As I reported then, that was a double lie by NASA. First, SKYLAB could never be saved because it had already been destroyed. Second, the United States was in no position at that time to launch the shuttle or anything else of a military nature into space. Russia was deploying her secret new Space Triad of advanced manned space weapons.

America's previous military control of space had been totally shattered by Russia. Our military base on the moon had been put out of action in the "Battle of the Harvest Moon." Russian Cosmos Interceptors had started sweeping the skies clear of
American Spy Satellites, and Russian hovering electrogravitic weapons platforms, the Cosmospheres, were making headlines by
creating enormous air booms along the East Coast and elsewhere. All of these things took place just as America's Space Shuttle Program was getting off the ground.

The result was a complete reorganization of the Shuttle Program. The old plans to bathe it in continuous publicity were thrown out. The Bolsheviks here, who have replaced the Rockefeller cartel in many areas of power, cast a net of secrecy over all these new military plans. We were never told about many of the capabilities of the training shuttle Enterprise, and we were never told about the many things which are going on at White Sands in the military Shuttle Program. By keeping these things secret from us, the Bolsheviks here have placed themselves in a powerful position to deceive us.

We have never been told about the modified NASA 747 which carries a complete replica of the crew quarters and cargo bay of a shuttle. Therefore we are unaware that this airplane, originally intended for training, has become a Bolshevik tool of deception against us. When we saw video tapes of astronauts in the simulated Shuttle cockpit, we naturally thought it was the real thing. Seeing a notebook float in mid air for a few seconds next to the astronauts, we were supposed to think: "They are weightless because they are in orbit." We were given no clue that these moments of weightlessness had taken place months earlier in a 747 flying a controlled arc through the air. Likewise, we were shown one or two episodes of the astronauts moving around the cabin, obviously weightless for up to three or four minutes. What we were not told is that these scenes had been video-taped months earlier during suborbital space hops by the training shuttle Enterprise.

Many of my listeners have called or written with the same observation about the first of these episodes shown the day of the launch. We heard the alleged "live" conversation of Young and Crippen, and yet, in the television picture, they were not moving their lips. They had merely posed for the camera during a suborbital flight months earlier, and they recorded the sound track we heard only days before the launch.

While NASA may have fooled you and me about the Space Shuttle, they did not fool the new rulers of Russia. They learned last fall what the flight of the Columbia was really all about; and, my friends, when the Columbia was launched two weeks ago, the
Russians were ready and waiting!

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8730
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #3 on: November 07, 2012, 07:35:19 PM »
Focusing only on the shuttle flight profile and not the more outrageous elements, this roughly parallels my belief that the shuttle is launched from the pad on a parabolic flight before landing somewhere discretely. The shuttle is later released again from a 747 at altitude to complete it's journey back to KSC.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2012, 12:38:23 AM »
One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos


A brief excerpt.



How did they fake so many trips to Venus and Saturn, Mars, etc.?

Well, one day around 1978 I was also wondering the same thing myself. I had seen the pictures of Saturn and it's rings and moons and I was also wondering, wow, 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos were being transmitted from, what was it, Voyager?. I kept wondering, How?  Of course, they could just be models and photos were taken. But, then, one day, just after Star Wars II came out and Star Trek the movie (# 1) came out I had got hold of a movie industry magazine that was called Business Pictures. In it were ads from special effects companies who work for Hollywood. This was the dawn of computer graphics being used in motion pictures. Star Wars I was made using mostly models, but, after Star Wars I, George Lucas used some of the profits to set up a new lab called Pixar, which strove to push the technology and create stunning effects using state of the art Computer Workstations. CG, or Computer Graphics. I was looking at some of the ads and articles in the magazine and I found a peculiar one. Unfortunately I do not recall the name of the company running the ad. But, they were selling computer graphics "programming", not a finished program, but the algorythms and 'basic mathematical building blocks' used to create a program. What they claimed to be was a company that does contract work for JPL, NASA and the military. What they were selling were the software foundations and routines that did texture mapping and perspective, surface reflection, shadow mapping, etc. Then, what really caught my eye and peaked my interest was that the ad stated that the information they were selling had been developed over 10 years prior by NASA and the US military and had, up until now, been considered highly classified and secret information. With this technology and the use of super computers they claimed it was possible to create virtually any special effects scene. The reason given that the information was now being declassified and being offered for sale was that the movie industry (specifically the work done by Lucas's Pixar team - which became the foundation for Industrial Light and Magic, the premiere computer graphics company of the entire industry), had begun to catch up with the secret technology and it was decided there was no longer any reason to keep the information classified.

Wow. The same technology that helped to produce the visual effects of space, planets, and space crafts used for Star Wars II and Star Trek I had been developed and used by NASA and JPL for over 10 years earlier. That would mean that NASA and JPL had the ability to create virtual reality graphics effects as early as the late 1960's. Texture mapping, shadow mapping, light reflection, etc. Then I instantly realized how JPL was turning out 10's of 1,000's of electronic photos of Saturn and space. They had CG technology for a long time before Hollywood finally caught up and learned how to do it. The 'fly-by' probes that mapped Venus and Saturn, etc. all sent back to earth electronic data and photos. It was feasible to generate all of this on computer. JPL had at it's disposal the fastest and most powerful super-computers of the day, like the Cray. All they had to do was bounce signals off a distant satellite so that the ground crews would receive real signals that they thought were coming from deep space.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2012, 07:12:02 PM »
One of the most informative works on the fake nasa missions...

http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm#Videos
I've been reading this one.  It's good.

Quote from: JamesBeals
The US Army Air Force and the US Navy designed several experimental winged 'rocket' airplanes in the late 1940’s ... Later rocket planes became known as X rocket planes (X = experimental) - the most famous being the X-15. Werner von Braun was among the leading German-American scientists working on this project since the late 1940's.  From that time, von Braun developed the basis of deep space travel and the US space program which has not changed to this day!  About 1950 von Braun envisioned using experimental rocket planes as 'Space Shuttles' that ferried men and materials to build orbiting space stations far above the earth...

...Emphasis on the space program got sidetracked. The real US space program was the X-15 rocket which it would refine until it became a space shuttle that could take men and heavy loads into space, but funding for that project was put on the back burner as more funds were spent on ballistic missiles with cargos on top of them.


Quote from: JamesBeals
I went to a public library in California to research the space program and found that a number of NASA directors claimed that the space shuttle was the 'real' space program from the X-15 through to the shuttle itself.  I was only surprised that they admitted it publicly.  They claimed that political publicity had forced the US to do the same thing as Russia which had put men in capsules atop ballistic missiles.  These statements were made by several of the past directors of NASA and senior leaders of the space program.  Some of the books with these statements were even published by NASA. They stated that the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo projects were cold war publicity stunts performed to keep up with the Russians. 

These men stopped short of saying that the projects were actually faked.  Their public stand is that these projects, including the trips to and landing on the Moon were real, but they were not the real US space program.  They say that the real space program has been the space shuttle since the 1950s.
 
http://www.aulis.com/moonshadows.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm

I will track down the NASA books and directors' statements that corroborate these claims. 

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2012, 07:18:40 PM »
Quote from: JamesBeals
If Apollo was faked, then did the Saturn 5 Booster rocket ever exist or was it also fake?  My theory says it was faked.  NASA later claimed that the shuttle was better and did not need the Saturn 5, but NASA’s own data indicates that Saturn 5 was a superior launch vehicle.  With a 280,000 lb low altitude orbit payload capacity it had seven times the cargo carrying capacity of the shuttle.  How can NASA say the Saturn 5 was no longer needed because they now had the Shuttle?  The Saturn 5 could have put seven Hubble telescopes into orbit in a single launch! 

In a book by Bill Kaysing called "We Never Went to The Moon" he claims to have worked at Rocketdyne during the 1950's and 1960's.  He says they tried to make a rocket that size, but the rockets never worked properly and exploded or were otherwise not controllable.  He claims NASA took the project away and had a 'working' Saturn 5 in 6 months on their own.  NASA faked the Saturn 5 Booster rockets because they had to 'show' something to make it look like it could go to the moon.  They built a large shell and strapped modified rocket engines on them.  The rocket engines were modified to operate at a fraction of their power to keep them controllable and prevent their explosion.  These empty shells were blasted off which made a good spectacle that was part of the show.

If the Saturn 5 Boosters were fake, then they would never be used again for any purpose. 
Right, they weren't.

That last one is my favorite line.

The last Apollo launch was 6 Decembre 1972, and the last use of a Saturn 5 booster rocket was five months later with the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab. 

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2012, 08:01:33 PM »
Quote from: JamesBeals
NASA still has plans to build a space station, but they claim they want heavier pieces in orbit than the Shuttle can manage.  Therefore, NASA called for plans to A), build a higher capacity Shuttle, or B) build a whole new rocket launch vehicle. 

Some scientists are perplexed about this and have tried in vain to convince NASA to revive the Saturn 5 Booster.  They heralded its supposed statistics such as its alleged load capacity.  They heralded its perfect record of 0 failures which is not too hard to do if it were faked.  It had 17 launches and 0 failures.  Perfect.  It was the biggest, and the best, and the most reliable, and they cannot comprehend why NASA doesn't revive it.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6772
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 11:52:29 AM by sandokhan »

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2013, 04:09:36 PM »
Quote from: JamesBeals
If Apollo was faked, then did the Saturn 5 Booster rocket ever exist or was it also fake?  My theory says it was faked.  NASA later claimed that the shuttle was better and did not need the Saturn 5, but NASA’s own data indicates that Saturn 5 was a superior launch vehicle.  With a 280,000 lb low altitude orbit payload capacity it had seven times the cargo carrying capacity of the shuttle.  How can NASA say the Saturn 5 was no longer needed because they now had the Shuttle?  The Saturn 5 could have put seven Hubble telescopes into orbit in a single launch! 

In a book by Bill Kaysing called "We Never Went to The Moon" he claims to have worked at Rocketdyne during the 1950's and 1960's.  He says they tried to make a rocket that size, but the rockets never worked properly and exploded or were otherwise not controllable.  He claims NASA took the project away and had a 'working' Saturn 5 in 6 months on their own.  NASA faked the Saturn 5 Booster rockets because they had to 'show' something to make it look like it could go to the moon.  They built a large shell and strapped modified rocket engines on them.  The rocket engines were modified to operate at a fraction of their power to keep them controllable and prevent their explosion.  These empty shells were blasted off which made a good spectacle that was part of the show.

If the Saturn 5 Boosters were fake, then they would never be used again for any purpose. 
Right, they weren't.

That last one is my favorite line.

The last Apollo launch was 6 Decembre 1972, and the last use of a Saturn 5 booster rocket was five months later with the 14 May 1973 launch of Skylab.

Large boosters were not required, the same thrust, or thrust adequate for a lunar mission, can be achieved through the use of many smaller boosters.

I am not debating as to whether or not the rockets boosters exist, only stateing that large boosters such as those on the Saturn v would not be necessary.

The russians successfully produced enough lift for their large scale rocket, they just could not get enough reliabilty for it to work.  The issue was that the 30 rocket boosters required a highly complex plumbing setup, which was fragile and failure prone.  But the underfunded prodject could have proved successful if it was not scrapped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-1_rocket

Why do you think that the US chose to create larger rocket boosters, either fake or real?

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2015, 10:53:01 PM »
I came across a book published by a mainstream publisher that chronicles NASA's military operations.

This significance of this neglected NASA military history can perhaps be better appreciated when it is distinguished from NASA's more well known mythical history of moon visits, exaggerations, and  computer generated propaganda. This book answers the question of what NASA actually did accomplish considering that it's official history is false.


'Spies and Shuttles: NASA's Relationships with the DOD and CIA'
by James David
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/s/ref=is_s/175-4613440-0493060?k=nasa+dod
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 10:17:54 PM by 17 November »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2015, 09:22:10 PM »
Why do you think that the US chose to create larger rocket boosters, either fake or real?

The reason that the U.S. created the Apollo rocket boosters is the same reason that the Apollo program was created. 

The best and most well informed answer as to the reason for Apollo that I have found is an older book by John Logsdon from 1970 which argues that the Apollo program was created out of a desire for anti-communist scientific propaganda against the Soviet Union. Although Logsdon apparently believes the moon landings actually occurred, he proves with documents that the motivation to fund Apollo had nothing to do with space travel. Logsdon is incidentally still respected and quoted as an authority on the politics of space history by the major media.

Several books about NASA founder Werner Von Braun's career as a Nazi officer in Himmler's SS have been published in recent years as well as a history of corruption at NASA during its administration in the 1960's by James Webb. Although all of these are good, in my opinion John Logsdon's history is still the best as it adequately explains why Apollo happened.

'John F. Kennedy and the Race to the Moon'
by John Logsdon (1970)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1137346493/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/182-7630111-2448430

John Logsdon
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Logsdon

MIT Press more recently published a history of NASA's extensive Apollo propaganda which successfully convinced many people that moon visitations had occurred.

'Marketing the Moon: The Selling of the Apollo Lunar Program'
by David Scott (2014)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0262026961/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1422250735&sr=8-1
« Last Edit: January 25, 2015, 10:09:49 PM by 17 November »

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2015, 03:01:07 PM »
You mean to tell me that there are people that didn't know that we went to the moon simply to prove our dick was bigger than the Soviets scientifically speaking? It would be nice to say it was done for exploration and knowledge, but even my high school for US History text book said it was only done as another component of the cold war. Not really big news.

Nor is that Braum was a Nazi or that NASA went through an era of extreme internal dysfunction, culminating in the first shuttle exploding on lift off.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #13 on: February 06, 2015, 04:31:54 PM »
This is not a debate forum.  Please refrain from posting here if you have nothing relevant to add.

*

Lemmiwinks

  • 2161
  • President of the Non-Conformist Zetetic Council
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #14 on: February 06, 2015, 04:56:00 PM »
This is not a debate forum.  Please refrain from posting here if you have nothing relevant to add.

Gotcha, I added something as relevant as this thread to this fora now. Thanks for the clarification.
I have 13 [academic qualifications] actually. I'll leave it up to you to guess which, or simply call me a  liar. Either is fine.

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur

*

Stanton

  • 236
  • Pizza Earth with Extra Cheese
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #15 on: February 14, 2016, 07:32:23 PM »

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.



This is too rich to pass up...


"One minute 45 seconds, coming up on go-go-go." "Columbia, you're negative seats." "That call-up says that, Columbia, the altitude is too high for ejection seat use."


No shuttles ever had ejection seats.


You shills REALLY need to watch your vocabulary.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Space Shuttles
« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2016, 05:40:20 PM »

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.



This is too rich to pass up...


"One minute 45 seconds, coming up on go-go-go." "Columbia, you're negative seats." "That call-up says that, Columbia, the altitude is too high for ejection seat use."


No shuttles ever had ejection seats.

You might want to rethink your statement.